typed array strawman proposal

P T Withington ptw at pobox.com
Wed Jan 27 10:15:57 PST 2010


On 2010-01-27, at 13:06, Brendan Eich wrote:

> Anyway, we do not want to require exotic techniques. We want to allow C++ implementations, which require constants to avoid obvious performance hits for no good reason. Competition will kill any browser foolish enough to take such hits.

That seems inconsistent with the philosophy that classes can be syntactic sugar on closures that will be magically optimized.

I'm just seconding the suggestion that you could have a flexible syntax that would allow specifying any byte width and offset and optimize the cases where the byte width and offset are known at compile time.  Instead of guessing which of the n*m combinations you should cast in stone as built-in types.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list